If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I came to hammocking from an ultralight background looking for comfort.
In my mind, having a hammock that's too small defeats the purpose and will only save a couple of ounces. I still weigh the rest of my kit in grams.

Having said that, I don't think there is a singular answer to you question; and it's not because folks have individual opinions. I own three commercial hammocks and have made four DIY's. The two most comfortable ones are 48" wide and 67" wide - go figure!

I start out making my hammocks 11' long and generally find them comfy. However, just this past weekend, I made one out of crinkly parachute material and had to keep cutting the length down to get it comfortable and ended up with a 10'-4" hammock - go figure, again!

I'm becoming a believer that the material plays a very important roll in comfort, not just size. This Grasshopper is still learning the mysteries of hammocks

I hear you. I have a nylon hammock that's the same width and slightly shorter than a polyester hammock and I find the nylon more "roomy" feeling. Stretch plays a role in this particular case.

Like you, I have different answers. But when we make/buy/choose a hammock, we do consider weight, length and width. So those factors do matter to us enough that they drive us (along with price, reputation/quality and maybe a few others) to choose one hammock over another. It's not an easy question to answer, but we do answer it when we select hammocks for our use.

Ultralighters:
What would be the narrowest comfortable width you could "enjoy" for a hammock? The narrowest commercial product I've seen is about 48 inches.

Next question:
What would be the ideal length you would like to have when comfort and light BOTH matter?

I expect a lot of folks to have different answers. Getting light probably means sacrificing comfort and vice versa. Some folks are more concerned about light; others care about comfort. As such, the answers may be different. That's OK. Bring it on!

Thanks!

Straight answer from me: 48" felt too narrow. 52" was pretty good for me. I solved my narrow issue with a trick of design by adding a "footbox" to a 48" wide hammock, so now it feels wider than it is thus saving weight but maintaining comfort. I found by adding a second "footbox" the shoulder area I could go crazy short and maintain comfort - but the hammock is destine to fail on the side and die a spectacular death on the trail in the middle of the night in a thunderstorm.

So lesson learned - you can go shorter when you go wider if you do it right. So what you may find is that if you go narrow, you may want a longer hammock and lay more in line with the center, but if you go wider you may not need the length. I found that going more in-line with the hammock was less comfortable than going wider. The "footbox" on one side solved my issues all around.

Excellent points

Originally Posted by SGT Rock

Straight answer from me: 48" felt too narrow. 52" was pretty good for me. I solved my narrow issue with a trick of design by adding a "footbox" to a 48" wide hammock, so now it feels wider than it is thus saving weight but maintaining comfort. I found by adding a second "footbox" the shoulder area I could go crazy short and maintain comfort - but the hammock is destine to fail on the side and die a spectacular death on the trail in the middle of the night in a thunderstorm.

So lesson learned - you can go shorter when you go wider if you do it right. So what you may find is that if you go narrow, you may want a longer hammock and lay more in line with the center, but if you go wider you may not need the length. I found that going more in-line with the hammock was less comfortable than going wider. The "footbox" on one side solved my issues all around.

Sarge, everyone, thanks for playing. I know it's a bit dopey, but like I said, I was really curious to hear what others thought.

My preference is at least 52 inches wide and at least 9 feet long. I accept the caveat that more width can make less length acceptably comfortable, but for purposes of this exercise, I'd say that's about right for me. I am also 5'10 and I know some of you fellas are a head taller. And if weight doesn't matter as much, I love me a 64-inch by 10 foot hammock.

Appreciate the replies. Trying to get a good guide for our next project, a BIAS MicroLite which we're hoping to get down to the size of a baseball and get the weight down to 6-7 oz., but the real point is to do it somewhat comfortably. We can make a 40-inch by 78-inch hammock and get the weight right, but that's cheating.

48" would the limit. I fit just fine in a GT Nano. 9.5 feet to 11 feet would be the range for length. Honestly, it's not comfort I am sacraficing with a hammock like the Nano, it's durability and dependability. I am more afraid of it tearing or ripping apart on me when I'm out far from home. It's plenty comfortable for me.

48" would the limit. I fit just fine in a GT Nano. 9.5 feet to 11 feet would be the range for length. Honestly, it's not comfort I am sacraficing with a hammock like the Nano, it's durability and dependability. I am more afraid of it tearing or ripping apart on me when I'm out far from home. It's plenty comfortable for me.

I haven't laid in a Nano all I've laid in is a HH Deluxe, WBBB Single 1.1 and Traveler 1.1 but even being a smaller guy I like the ability to move around much.

I think that not only the fabric and width needs to be fairly light weight but also in the area of suspension and ridge line.

For instance the Traveler comes in with suspension at 12.5oz... by swapping out to dynaglide whoopies and switching to a 1.75 zing it line I was able to shave 2 oz off the rig.

Then there's the bug net.... trying to get something in the 2oz range so now the total hammock in bug season is 12.5oz which is significantly lighter and more packable than the standard WBBB 1.1 single at 18oz.

If you guys can get a hammock for bug season in the 13oz or lower area as a standard you will have yourself a really good winner.

"If you give a monkey a gun and he shoots someone, you dont blame the monkey"

The end of the world is not coming in December, it is happening now in my living room. - TFC Rick

I haven't laid in a Nano all I've laid in is a HH Deluxe, WBBB Single 1.1 and Traveler 1.1 but even being a smaller guy I like the ability to move around much.

I think that not only the fabric and width needs to be fairly light weight but also in the area of suspension and ridge line.

For instance the Traveler comes in with suspension at 12.5oz... by swapping out to dynaglide whoopies and switching to a 1.75 zing it line I was able to shave 2 oz off the rig.

Then there's the bug net.... trying to get something in the 2oz range so now the total hammock in bug season is 12.5oz which is significantly lighter and more packable than the standard WBBB 1.1 single at 18oz.

If you guys can get a hammock for bug season in the 13oz or lower area as a standard you will have yourself a really good winner.

i could ... but the weight limit would be under 100lbs LOL

It puts the Underquilt on it's hammock ... It does this whenever it gets cold

I haven't laid in a Nano all I've laid in is a HH Deluxe, WBBB Single 1.1 and Traveler 1.1 but even being a smaller guy I like the ability to move around much.

I think that not only the fabric and width needs to be fairly light weight but also in the area of suspension and ridge line.

For instance the Traveler comes in with suspension at 12.5oz... by swapping out to dynaglide whoopies and switching to a 1.75 zing it line I was able to shave 2 oz off the rig.

Then there's the bug net.... trying to get something in the 2oz range so now the total hammock in bug season is 12.5oz which is significantly lighter and more packable than the standard WBBB 1.1 single at 18oz.

If you guys can get a hammock for bug season in the 13oz or lower area as a standard you will have yourself a really good winner.

I think you're right. Thanks for the feedback. We're dumb enough to work on it. We may end up with a lower weight capacity and the tradeout may, indeed, be durability, as has been mentioned. tncamper and I are not skinny boys and we're reluctant to try to make anything we don't trust with our weight. He's about 190... I'm, well, more than that. Our goal is to make a hammock that will handle up to 200 lbs (which we'd label as 180 due to weights of underquilts, topquilts, etc.)

Our goal is to make a hammock that will handle up to 200 lbs (which we'd label as 180 due to weights of underquilts, topquilts, etc.)

Im #225 and I am using hammock made out of the 1.5 ripstop from DIYGS. I hated the idea of using 1.9 when I didn't need to. Might be worth a shot although I am pretty sure most manufacturers label the 1.1 single layers for around #200